ECJ, order of 14/06/2017 - C67/17 (Iliev)

Central standards: Art. 1 para. 2 lit. a Brussels Ia Regulation

(Interpretation of the term „matrimonial property regime“)

Guiding principle: 

Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute such as that in the main proceedings, which - following a divorce decree - concerns the division of a movable property acquired during the marriage by spouses who are nationals of a Member State but domiciled in another Member State, does not fall within the scope of that regulation, but is covered by the matrimonial property regimes and thus by the exception in Article 1(2)(a).

Problem:

Mr Iliev, a Bulgarian citizen, and Ms Ilieva, an Italian and Bulgarian citizen, were married on 1 June 2007 in Choumen (Bulgaria). On 2 July 2015, the marriage was dissolved by decision of the Rayonen sad Choumen (Choumen District Court, Bulgaria). Following the divorce pronounced by that court, Mr Iliev brought an action before the referring court for the division of a motor vehicle purchased by Mrs Ilieva and registered in her name in November 2009. Mr Iliev argued that the vehicle had been purchased during the marriage with joint funds and belonged to both parties in equal shares in accordance with Articles 21 and 28 of the Family Code, even though it had been registered in Italy only in Mrs Ilieva's name. The question therefore arises as to whether the dispute falls within the scope of this Regulation or under the matrimonial property regime and thus under the exception in Article 1(2)(a).

Summary of the Decision:

According to the ECJ, this was an act éclairé, which meant that the decision could be issued in the order. The concept of „matrimonial property regime“ covers not only the property regimes provided for specifically and exclusively for the legal relationship of marriage in some national legal systems, but also all property relationships arising directly from the marriage or its dissolution (judgment of 27 March 1979, de Cavel, 143/78, EU:C:1979:83, para. 7). It follows that a dispute between divorced spouses concerning the division of a movable property acquired during the marriage, which concerns property relations between those persons arising directly from the dissolution of the marriage, does not fall within the scope of Regulation No 1215/2012, but within the second category referred to in the preceding paragraph.

For the reasons:

20 Under Article 99 of its Rules of Procedure, where the answer to a question referred for a preliminary ruling can be clearly deduced from the case-law, the Court may at any time, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, decide to rule by reasoned order.

21 This provision is applicable here.

22 By its three questions, which it is appropriate to consider together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute such as that in the main proceedings, which concerns, after a divorce has been granted, the division of a movable property acquired during the marriage by spouses who are nationals of a Member State but domiciled in another Member State, falls within the scope of that regulation or within the scope of the matrimonial property regimes and, therefore, within the scope of the exception laid down in Article 1(2)(a).

23 Since Regulation No 1215/2012 has now replaced the Brussels Convention in relations between the Member States, with the exception of the Kingdom of Denmark, the Court's interpretation of that convention also applies to that regulation, in so far as its provisions and those of the Brussels Convention may be regarded as „equivalent“. It is apparent from recital 34 in the preamble to Regulation No 1215/2012 that the interpretation must respect the continuity between the Brussels Convention and that regulation (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 October 2011, Realchemie Nederland, C-406/09, EU:C:2011:668, paragraph 38).

24 As regards the scope of Regulation No 1215/2012, it should be noted that Article 1(2)(a) of that regulation corresponds to Article 1(2)(1) of the Brussels Convention and that the wording of the two provisions is identical.

25 Consequently, reference must be made to the case-law of the Court of Justice on Article 1(2)(1) of the Brussels Convention, in particular the judgment of 27 March 1979, de Cavel (143/78, EU:C:1979:83).

26 In that judgment, the Court examined whether a dispute concerning a measure for the preservation of property in divorce proceedings falls within the scope of the Brussels Convention on the ground that it is a measure relating to property.

27 The Court has pointed out that, by reason of the specific nature of certain areas of law, including the status of persons, legal capacity and legal representation of natural persons, matrimonial property regimes and the law of succession, including the law of wills, disputes relating to those areas are excluded from the scope of the Convention (judgment of 27 March 1979, de Cavel, 143/78, EU:C:1979:83, paragraph 6).

28 The Court has held that the concept of „matrimonial property regimes“ in Article 1(2)(1) of the Brussels Convention covers not only the matrimonial property regimes provided for specifically and exclusively in some national legal systems, but also all property relations arising directly out of the marriage or its dissolution (judgment of 27 March 1979, de Cavel, 143/78, EU:C:1979:83, paragraph 7).

29 The Court has concluded that, depending on the circumstances of the case, disputes concerning the property of the spouses during divorce proceedings may concern or be closely connected with the following areas: first category: matters relating to marital status; second category: property relations between the spouses which arise directly out of the marriage or its dissolution; third category: property relations which exist between the spouses but have no connection with the marriage. Only disputes in the last category fall within the scope of the Brussels Convention, while those relating to the first two categories are excluded (judgment of 27 March 1979, de Cavel, 143/78, EU:C:1979:83, paragraph 7).

30 It follows that a dispute between divorced spouses concerning the division of a movable property acquired during the marriage, which concerns legal property relations between those persons arising directly from the dissolution of the marriage, does not fall within the scope of Regulation No 1215/2012, but within the second category referred to in the preceding paragraph.

31 It should be added that Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 337, p. 1), applies to civil matters relating to divorce according to Article 1(1)(a) thereof. 2003, L 338, p. 1) applies to civil matters relating to divorce according to its Article 1(1)(a), but according to its eighth recital it only applies to the dissolution of a marriage and not to issues such as the grounds for divorce, matrimonial property regimes or other possible ancillary aspects.

32 Consequently, the answer to the questions referred is that Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute such as that in the main proceedings, which concerns, after a divorce has been granted, the division of a movable property acquired during the marriage by spouses who are nationals of a Member State but domiciled in another Member State, does not fall within the scope of that regulation, but is covered by the matrimonial property regimes and, therefore, by the exception provided for in Article 1(2)(a).